Comments:U.S. space agency NASA sues ex-astronaut

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. Please remain on topic and avoid offensive or inflammatory comments where possible. Try thought-provoking, insightful, or controversial. Civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Use the "Start a new discussion" button just below to start a new discussion. If the button isn't there, wait a few seconds and click this link: Refresh.

Been there, done that. No, not an astronaut. I was a nurse at a state owned hospital, during a renovation I saw some perfectly-serviceable light fixtures going into a dumptruck. After my shift and knowing that anything going into that truck was destined for the landfill; I pulled out a four-tube fixture and proceeded to place it in my pickup's bed. A hospital police officer saw me and informed me that I had state property in my truck and could be arrested on the spot. I asked him if he knew where the load was headed and he admitted that he did. I told him to go ahead and arrest me and we'd both make the evening news. I told him it was a sin to allow something like that to go to a dump if it could so easily be plucked from the truck and reused. He went about his rounds and I went home and put the light in the laundry room. That was about twenty years ago. It's the best flourescent fixture I've ever been aware of - it never seems to wear out bulbs. And no wonder...high quality hospital fixture, go figure.

I have no doubt that the former astronaut saved the camera from the trash pile nearly forty years ago. The shame of it is that if NASA hadn't sued him they would have been criticized for not protecting goverment property.

And of course your story shows only the wee tip of the iceberg of government waste. I say squeeze NASA's budget until they don't have the funds to sue this American hero. Forty years later they want their camera back. If it's so valuable to them then NASA needs to explain why they let it excape their posession in the first place. This taxpayer gets the impression that NASA is quiet cavalier when it comes to protecting taxpayers' interests.

I would have liked to see a more detailed title that explains why NASA is suing this man

Can the Government Not let this man do as he wishes with this equipment My god where does the foolishness end?

This man, Mister Mitchell, is a hero by all standards, he risked his life and limb to explore space and grant us a greater knowledge and understanding of our universe. Nowadays many of us take for granted such knowledge, and some even think it was a waste. Everyone being entitled to their own notions and opinions(even if they are ridiculous) in my view it was a very important step for "humankind". In the here and now, these notions are fine and swell, but they give a sort of underlining to the story and the fact that NASA is taking legal action against one of our World's most courageous and celebrated living heroes. It is sad and downright wrong to do this to a senior, even more so to a senior with economical issues. The US should take better care of its Living Treasures, not just the immaterial, even more so because they ARE living, once they pass away all those personal experiences will be gone leaving only a Treasured Memory. Why would NASA do such a thing, after all they still boast about how they put men on the Moon, for Pete's sake they RISKED this man's life! I say he is entitled to keep HIS camera, he is an elderly man and putting him under such a situation is just ridiculous, not to mention they ARE putting him under duress risking HIS life once more to the pressure of the US legal system. Younger men get sick from attending court, end up bald and worse, and MR. Mitchell is no criminal (as far as we know). If this is what NASA is all about these days, bickering over something they would have thrown into the trash in all reality back then, no wonder they got their budget shredded (wasting of money on a lawsuit). This is sour affair, and it makes me sick to my stomach how low NASA officials have sunk. If they want the darned thing back, why they don't cough up the money they are spending on the lawyer and just pay Mitchell his price for having "secured and curated the equipment" and solve the issue. Elegant compromises are better than bruised wallets and even more bruised spirits.

I agree. NASA spending taxpayer money to sue a national hero over a piece of junk is a disgraceful situation.If this is how NASA uses it's budget , maybe it ought to be time to consider shrinking or closing NASA for making such shameful decisions in rough economic times. Why not auctioning off all NASA to lower the public depth.

This man has money problems. Let him pose in a beggar's outfit and take a pic, send it to the world with the caption, "THIS IS HOW NASA LOOKS AFTER THEIR ASTONAUTS"156.8.251.250 (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

NASA you have got to be kidding me. Don't do this, it is not a good look.

It pains me that NASA would go to these lengths to recover something that I too believe they thought was junk in 1971. This will give NASA another "black eye" and cause them more promotional damage than the cost of retrieving the camera. What a shame.

The way I see it, the man has had the camera in his possession for forty years. If NASA had wanted the camera that bad, they should've gotten it from him before now.